So therefore, the French should be dispossessed of their wealth in all its many manifestations.

That’s globalism.

And, sadly, that’s socialism.

Make everybody the same.

Take by force.

Redistribute.

Doesn’t sound very civilized to me…

Rather, sounds fairly barbarian.

A shortcut on hard work.

But I’m really aiming to get under your thumb (er, skin) as regards “race”.

I put it in skeptical quotations because modern genetics has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the concept of “race” is ridiculous.

As Geoffrey Carr of The Economist puts it, “One group of 55 chimps in West Africa shows more genetic diversity than the whole of humanity.”

I usually don’t trust The Economist farther than I can throw it.

Because there are no bylines.

And it is a clearly globalist rag.

But Mr. Carr has a point.

To put words in his mouth…if there are no races, then there must be no racism.

I’m sure some other word will suffice.

Phenotype.

I’ll get back to you once I wade through Euclid’s Elements.

But I hope my point is clear.

If races don’t exist (a notion the globalists are pushing very hard…for ulterior motives), then racism is an absurd concept.

But still, SOMETHING exists.

Perhaps it’s just a “rose” by another name.

Which brings us to this film.

Three Amigos. It’s racist, right?

I mean, the Mexicans in this film aren’t doctors and lawyers.

They don’t speak flawless English with no hint of accent.

And though they run a small gamut, there are indeed stereotypes at work.

But is it mean-spirited?

I would argue it is not.

Or else, the Pink Panther films should all be banned out of deference to the French.

Which is no less absurd than saying John Landis’ masterpiece under review is “racist”.

But let me bring a different slant (no pun intended) to this dialogue.

In my area, south Texas, a mixing of “races” is apparent.

There are white people. And a few black people. But mostly there are brown people.

And then there are gradations.

So-and-so is darker than what’s-his-name. And so on and so forth.

And we know that this darkness in skin pigmentation (for Mexican-Americans) comes largely from the Native Americans who populated what is today the U.S. and Mexico.

Before the Europeans arrived.

But here’s my personal two bits.

This film, Three Amigos, was cherished by me and all my school chums when we were growing up.

People with last names like Lopez, De Los Santos, etc.

We were all friends.

And though we may have fallen out of touch with one another, we all seemed to find enjoyment in Three Amigos.

Indeed, my Hispanic (Latino) friends apparently found the characterizations of Mexicans the funniest.

And, dare I say it, because (as the adage goes), “It’s–so–true!!!”

Whether any characterization of Mexicans in this film is or isn’t true…that’s immaterial.

For me.

I am not the ultimate judge.

But things have changed.

And it’s not just the Trump effect.

Over the years, people have become more and more “polite”.

That’s a good thing, right?

Well, I’m not so sure…

Because it’s not a genuine politeness.

It’s a politesse which is enforced topdown.

It’s not really a choice.

And, to make dead clear, it is our old nemesis: social engineering.

It is in this sense that social engineering is truly defined.

Any other definition (the activities of a pickpocket, a conman, a hacker) is insufficient and misleading.

Social engineering is, by-and-large, practiced at the highest levels of government, at policy institutions, and in commerce by Ivy League jerks (both male and female) who wish to mold society into a shape pleasing unto them.

And like those pernicious Fabians of old, they have no qualms about smashing the world to bits if such means lead to their desired end.

The Fabians, of course, never rush anything. Unless they panic. At which time they reveal themselves. To be the losers they are.

Yes, I am no fan of the Fabian socialists.

Because their whole programme is predicated on deception and secrecy.

And, as such, it should be thoroughly suspect whenever encountered.

But this is a comedy, right?

Yes! Amen!! Something we can agree on!!!

[perhaps]

This grand apologia is to introduce one of my favorite films.

Three Amigos.

It is not “politically correct”, but then NOTHING was in 1986.

And with “correctness” we have lost our sense of humor.

We are too easily offended.

We need “safe spaces”.

Ok, ok…I promise I’m not about to get all Bill O’Reilly here.

Because I have railed AGAINST Fox News for many years.

And, dare I say it, the real heroes in the USA were those who took CHANCES…BIG FUCKING CHANCES…to preserve liberty.

Trump came to the party late.

And I came to Trump even later.

But the real heroes are people like Alex Jones.

Indeed, there is no one like him.

But with the “Joneses” came others like Steve Pieczenik.

And so the tables have turned against the globalists.

Thank God for BREXIT!

Thank God for Trump!

And may God bless Marine Le Pen!

Because the neoliberal nightmare in which we are now mired (including the neoconservative, never-ending wars) has set the globalist agenda back decades.

The European Union is falling apart.

And rightly so.

Because it was a bad idea in the first place.

France must get rid of the atrocious Loi Gayssot.

And other European countries must follow suit.

We must be allowed to TALK!

The Internet will not allow tyranny.

Every government which seeks to control will find itself obsolete.

And so call it whatever you want.

If you’re “free market”, then the Internet is the genius of capitalism.

If you’re fond of sharing (so am I), then the Internet is the redistributive genius of socialism.

And, finally, we have the monstrosity of China.

Clearly no longer a communist state.

Yet neither a capitalist free market.

The mutant which is China…that juggernaut has been smashing the world in terms of productivity.

But there is a limit.

Now the people want FREEDOM.

[or so we are told]

At any rate, the blowback of globalism will ensure that the Chinese people crave the OPPORTUNITY (at least) to behave like Westerners.

THAT much is human nature.

And so I am not against natural globalization.

In that respect, the Fabians are right.

If “gradualism” is taken to mean “let nature take its course”.

But I am and will forever remain AGAINST synthetic globalism.

Globalization vs. globalism.

Semantic.

Suffice to say, I am very much against FORCED globalization.

And perhaps Erdoğan is a manifestation of reaction.

“Reactionary”, as the socialists always say. The worst insult a leftie can level!

As such, I have nothing against Erdoğan, but he can’t hold on to power IN SPITE OF the people.

Same with Trump.

Trump barely squeaked out a victory.

Because the globalist machine is so strong in America.

But rural pride was stronger.

And the Electoral College defeated Hillary Clinton.

But Trump will have to produce.

He knows this.

The clock is ticking on his four years.

And he has had adversaries on all sides.

So it remains to be seen…whether he will make good on his campaign promises.

I am standing behind him.

I am supporting him.

But I am ready to call “bullshit” when the moment is ripe.

Hopefully that moment will never come.

Hopefully he will be a wonderful President.

Which brings us back to “race”.

The wall.

It’s not meant to be “a symbol”, it’s meant to be a wall.

And we in America have long known that the story of 9/11 is seriously flawed…like Swiss cheese…it is not plausible.

I often shoot my mouth off (my defining characteristic), but I have done my research on 9/11.

It may be the most complex event ever.

But it certainly was not the work of 19 blokes with boxcutters.

And everywhere…we saw the stand-down.

Two parts to Roberta Wohlstetter’s pet theory.

False-flag stand-down.

9/11 was no more Islamic than Mickey Mouse.

And so many signs proved this case.

If it had been an attack actually emanating from outside the United States (as opposed to an inside, CIA job), then our southern border would have been secured toot sweet.

But such was not the case.

And those of us near the southern border had all the information we needed to put the final nail in the coffin.

That 9/11 was a self-inflicted attack.

[with help from Israeli Mossad and others]

It was a team effort of the globalists.

However, to paraphrase Guy Debord, “deceit deceived itself”.

9/11 was the day when the Ivy League lost.

Once and for all.

Never again will Yale be the same.

Never again will Harvard be guiltless (if they ever were [and they weren’t]).

Brave people spoke out.

Webster Tarpley (of Princeton).

Steve Pieczenik (of Cornell and Harvard).

But now our Ivy League President (Penn) has a chance to reverse the sustained-lie–the 8-year-nightmare of Barack Obama’s unreality.

The Democratic Party squandered its chance to see the neocons swing from the gallows.

A film critic whose favorite actress is a young 35-year-old whipper snapper???

Yes.

That’s alright.

Laugh at me.

If the question was, “Who was your favorite classic Hollywood actress?,” then I would answer, “Lauren Bacall”.

But I said favorite actress of all time.

You can search my “Thora” category here on my site for why exactly this actress is my favorite.

Because otherwise, we’re going to be here all day.

And I have a movie to review!

One of my favorites: Homeless to Harvard.

It is, indeed …The Liz Murray Story, but I will be using the shortened title hereafter for brevity’s sake.

It is my contention (and I have made the point elsewhere…probably on this very site of mine) that Thora Birch produced a trilogy of acting performances which are more-or-less analogous to Bob Dylan’s classic trilogy.

Let’s start with Dylan.

The three (at unity from a similarity of intense expression):

–Bringing It All Back Home

–Highway 61 Revisited

and

–Blonde on Blonde

And now the Thora films which correspond in my mind:

–American Beauty

–Ghost World

and

–Homeless to Harvard

Sure…Birch didn’t direct these films.

But her acting is so strong, she might as well have.

By this point she was no longer a prodigy.

She was a mature actress. A master of her craft.

And the story here is one to really sink teeth in.

[In which.]

We recently touched on homelessness here in the review of Alicia Vikander’s stellar turn as Katarina from Till det som är vackert.

He prominently displays his bust of Freud in his office and, while on vacation, at his lakeside home.

His son is named Sigmund.

His daughter, Anna.

And his wife looks much Jung-er than in her picture.

[I couldn’t resist]

But Bob is the kind of guy for whom the “block caller” function on your iPhone was invented.

As I said, however, Bob would make an excellent member of the intelligence community if he were not a practically-paralyzed nutbag.

Bob has problems “moving”.

But, to be frank, Bob has problems with everything.

Each and every activity which most people take for granted presents a unique hurdle for the perpetually-nervous Bob.

And I can relate.

Boy, can I!

Yet, what Bob lacks in conventional “people skills”, he makes up for with an endearing, warmhearted ease that he imparts to everyone he meets.

People love this guy.

If they take a second to get to know him.

And so we start with a patient (Bob) and a doctor (Leo).

But the lines blur early and often.

And so what director Frank Oz seems to be pointing out is something which Harvard professor Clay Christensen pointed out in his book How Will You Measure Your Life? not so long ago.

While Dr. Christensen makes clear that his former classmates at the Harvard Business School all seem to share a certain dissatisfaction with their lives (regardless of their tony jobs at McKinsey & Co., etc.), his thoughts on “disruptive innovation” occasioned an invitation from the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff to speak on this latter phenomenon.

So what I mean to say is this: yes, this is self-help, but it’s serious, serious stuff!

Funny enough, that seems to describe Bob quite well.

Operation Nifty Package could have been shortened by nine days (and spared the royalties to ASCAP and BMI) had a Bob Wiley merely been sent in to chat with Manuel Noriega 1989/1990.

Which is to say, Bob Wiley represents that person we all think we know: the most annoying person in the world.

They don’t come along often.

But when they do (and we are their captive audience), it makes psychological warfare look like child’s play.

So indeed, from the perspective of Dr. Leo Marvin, Bob Wiley must have seemed like a human weapon intent on wrecking his life.

The problem was that Dr. Marvin had become more focused on accolades (Good Morning America) and money than on the excellence of his caregiving.

Dr. Leo’s kids see this quite clearly.

Kathryn Erbe is excellent as Anna. She shows true generosity to Bob and an open heart.

Charlie Korsmo is wonderful as Sigmund. He does the same. He treats Bob as a person, not a patient.

But this film is therapeutic for me in that it shows (albeit in caricature) some of the very problems I go through on a daily basis.

Fear of the edge. Ok, let’s just make this the edge. No no, I can’t see what you’re doing from back there.

Bob has a certain bit of Forrest Gump in him.

Dumb luck. Or serendipity.

But really, Bob is an expert on psychological problems…because he has lived them.

Mind as battlefield. You might see it on the endcap of your local book store.

But for Bob, that’s not just a catchy title.

It’s life.

You’re in a lake…for the first time ever…because someone has just pushed you in…and you are kicking your legs, trying to get back to the pier…but you swim under the pier, because you’re nervous…and all you can say is, “Am I gonna die?”

I must praise the brave soul or souls at Hulu who made this documentary available through their video streaming service.

If there is a global conspiracy of greed at the most elite level of society, then those conspirators have yet to impress upon Hulu the lesson of what is arguably Juvenal’s most famous bit of thought.

America is becoming less and less restrained.

Continet. Contains. Contents itself with. Restrains itself.

Who? Se. They.

Those who have shed their cares. Effudit curas. Shed cares.

Who? Qui. Those who.

Who what?

Dabat olim. Once gave.

Once gave what? A shit.

Idem populus. The same people.

Ah! People. The people.

It is from Satura X. The 10th Satire of Juvenal. You might see it as Satvra.

Full. Satur.

Lanx satura. Full scale.

A full scale. Full-scale.

It was the Toronto Hearings. The International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001.

You’ll get a lot of stuff.

For instance, David Ray Griffin.

I have long appreciated his scholarship in the field of 9/11 research.

His books are part of my library.

You’ll also get the excellent Kevin Ryan (who lost his job at Underwriters Laboratories for questioning the fraudulent “science” of NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology]). UL worked with NIST on their reports regarding the cause of collapse of the World Trade Center buildings (all three of them). Ryan seems to have found any involvement in this unconscionable and thus spoke up. Just like Dr. James Tracy (for his Sandy Hook research), Ryan’s job employment with UL was terminated.

Imposimato was one of those who got to the bottom of Operation Gladio.

And so staged bombings have been with us awhile.

Mr. Imposimato uncovered the secrets of the “years of lead” in Italy.

The “strategy of tension”.

He uncovered that it was NATO intelligence (with a leading role played by the CIA).

Anything to keep the communists from coming to power.

So much so that the weapons caches of “stay behind networks” were put into service. Italy bombed and terrorized its own people. And blamed it on the Red Brigades.

To sway popular sentiment.

“Don’t vote for the communists!”

What a murderous, cynical solution to a phantom problem.

People cynically sacrificed to prevent some greater perceived threat.

And that’s exactly what 9/11 was.

That was the mechanism.

You will meet Richard Gage. Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

No quack.

A very articulate, serious person.

Same goes for Kevin Ryan.

Check their science.

Follow their logic.

Observe the duplicity of NIST and their politically-motivated fudging of numbers.

It is astounding!

You’ll meet Peter Dale Scott.

What an astute personality! Former English teacher at UC-Berkeley.

Famous for research on “the deep state”.

You may not want to believe it, but sticking your head in the sand won’t make it go away.

You’ll meet Graeme MacQueen. A Harvard Ph.D.

Serious voices.

Matthew Witt. Professor at the University of La Verne.

People putting their reputations on the line.

Smart, studied people who have sensed (and proven to their own satisfaction through the scientific method) that 9/11 was something far different from that which was presented.

How does news become history?

Once something is reported as news, is it then history?

There are very serious questions surrounding 9/11.

I cannot name all of the figures in this documentary, but ponder these:

-Cynthia McKinney (one of the only trustworthy politicians to have emerged in recent memory)

-Lance deHaven-Smith (a Florida State professor whose contribution to this documentary is priceless)

-Jonathan Cole (whose questions get at the heart of the mythical 9/11 “state crime against democracy” [a term coined by deHaven-Smith])

-David Chandler (whose beard is as impressive as his mathematics qualifications)

I highly recommend this documentary to all who value what remains of liberty. As the filmmakers make clear, many scourges of humanity can be traced back to the false narrative which followed quickly on the heels of the 9/11 events.

Judge for yourself whether the evidence presented supports the hypotheses of these researchers. As is no doubt evident, I concur with most of their conclusions regarding this sad event.

When last I left Raymond Bernard’s three-part masterpiece, I was comparing Donald Trump to Jean Valjean.

But one thing is for sure: the world from which the Donald comes is that of the Thénardiers.

Trickery.

Fakery.

Deception.

Violence.

Anything for a buck.

To extend my past diatribe, every time Ted Cruz opens his mouth he merely helps the prospects of Mr. Trump.

I am convinced that Mr. Cruz made it through Harvard Law School by requesting his course materials be in coloring book format.

An intellectual debate between Cruz and George W. Bush would be a toss-up.

Cruz and W. are two of the most dense personages ever to have matriculated from Ivy League institutions.

But that is only part of the story.

Ted Cruz is a walking lie.

Ted Cruz is Edward Bernays’ 1928 book Propaganda with feet.

All of this is to say that there is something very wrong with the enemies which Donald Trump has made in his “wrecking-ball candidacy” (to borrow a phrase from the esteemed Dr. Webster Tarpley).

Fox News has created Donald Trump (the candidate) by badmouthing him for so long.

As Fox News has zero (ze-ro) credibility, this criticism has given credibility to Trump.

All of the major media outlets are bad, but none are as Twilight Zone, Orwell vicious as Fox News.

But we still have to examine these pesky Thénardiers.

For dramatic purposes (in the novel of Victor Hugo), they are “the arch conspirator[s]” (to borrow another phrase from another esteemed fellow, Mr. Len Bracken).

The Donald tells us [and I paraphrase], “Vote for me and you’ll find out who really knocked down the towers [WTC].” He tells us we might find it’s the Saudis…

That’s a brilliant maneuver.

Trump sunk Jeb Bush’s candidacy with fear.

Jeb’s got stuff to hide.

The family business might finally fall afoul of the law (officially) for the first time since Prescott.

Whatever the case may be, Bush got out.

Sure, his numbers were horrible, but I think Dr. Steve Pieczenik nailed it in a particular interview on the Alex Jones radio show. You can find a video of that [for the time being] under my “links” tab.

So getting back to these pesky Thénardiers, they would seem to be the vicious thugs who pulled off 9/11 (if we are to superimpose a humanist novel onto modern geopolitics).

A massive ad campaign (grassroots, of course) sounded the bell for the longest time that “9/11 was an inside job”.

While that may be true in many respects, it has all the hallmarks of a marketing tagline. Which is to say, what appeared to be an organic movement (9/11 Truth) may have been steered by the real culprits away from the bona fide jugular.

It certainly seems that the Thénardiers in question had many high-level moles (to borrow a line of reasoning from Tarpley) of the George W. Bush administration in thrall to their machinations.

But then another ad hoc deflection recently resurfaced. The “28 pages” chorus.

Alex Jones, who used to so vehemently pronounce that 9/11 was an inside job, recently became more concerned with the “28 pages”.

The “28 pages” seems to essentially be an attempt to blame Saudi Arabia for 9/11.

Therefore, Trump’s bombshell statement can either be taken at face value (to paraphrase, “You might come to find out that it was the Saudis…”) or as coded language.

If it is coded language, then it is brilliant.

But the question is this:

is Donald Trump a). Jean Valjean or b.) Thénardier?

Donald has done hard time in the free-range world of corporate stratagems.

The real question remains: does he have a heart?

Jean Valjean had a heart.

Thénardier had none.

As Cosette asks about the convicts, “Are they still human?”

Valjean answers “Sometimes.”

Did Donald make it through the gauntlet to finally bring the RIGHT perps to justice for 9/11?